Smaller bores....bigger game

A

Anonymous

Guest
Has anyone else noticed that among the hunting community folks are pressing smaller and smaller cartridges for hunting larger and larger game?

On another hunting forum I frequent, I've routinely noticed folks listing the 6.5s, the .25s and even the .243 as elk cartridges and even recommended such for moose. Much of this advice is coming with a "reasonable" range figure that is at least 200 yards further than I'll shoot at anything. The 6.5CM seems often touted in the role as a "600 yard elk slayer".

I get that bullets are better than ever, but it wasn't that many years ago that the .270 was held as barely elk medicine and many elk hunters went to the .338. Moose rifles have been "over .30" country for decades and many old timers give me the stink eye when they find out I'm hunting with a .300! I can't imagine what they'd say to a .260REM! I understand high SD and BC numbers...but they don't seem that magical.

What's driving this? People buying 5 pound rifles and suddenly becoming acquainted with Newtonian physics when they pull the trigger? People chasing high B.Cs for long range shooting? Pure "fashion"?

Maybe I'm slowly turning into a curmudgeon, but I know on animals as big and tough as elk and moose, I'd sure want a whole lot more gun on hand to clean up a mess.
 
Yup. Seeing the same thing as well.

I think that plays into the LR crowd. Smaller cartridges are easier to shoot, and high BC Bullets look make shooters look better in the Wind.

I don't think it's purely bad overall as we still have freedom to pick what we want. Some folks will have to experience it for themselves.

I don't think you need a big gun. To really kill elk and moose. I think the Bullets mean much more than the cartridge they are pushed out of. With today's Bullets, a 260 or 25-06 is pretty danged capable. Is it more capable than a 300 Win Mag? I think a good bullet placed in a bulls lungs with a great bullet will do a lot of things well.

It is a far sight better than a 180 grain bullet in the rump.

Great topic. I think of my small guns as my 270 WSM.....
 
I believe the problem is that people want to be snipers and not hunters.

Bullets such as the Berger is designed for massive expansion and less penetration, so that smaller calibers deliver more hydrostatic shock and tissue damage to the animal and its nervous system for "DRT" performance. This leads to more meat damage. If the animal moves more than a few steps before expiring, many seem to believe that the bullet has failed.

The trend is also more about killing than hunting, and trophy size vs sustenance for the family. They want to brag about how far they shot an animal, and about how small a caliber they used to slay large, tenacious beasts.

I believe that this new "hunting" crowd, and those that are promoting their rifle/scope/bullet packages to increase sales are not promoting ethical hunting practices or mind sets.

Teaching new hunters that it is good to snipe at animals from 1000 yards is not a good practice. If they make a poor shot on an animal as tenacious as an elk across some canyon, open fields or mountain slopes, it could literally take then hours to get to where the elk was standing at the shot before they can start to follow up on that wounded animal. A poorly hit elk can now be 15 miles away. What if it is raining or snowing? Or starts to while getting to the spot? This will add to the difficulty of trying to track down the wounded animal! And I have seen way too many people give up trying to find their wounded animal without giving it "reasonable effort" as required by the law, or where they didn't even get to the right place where the animal was at the shot, and left a dead or dying animal in the field, but did continue to hunt for another animal. Not only are we finding these animals, but the game wardens are finding more animals dead in the field from rifle shots, and they cannot determine where the shot was taken from to perform their investigations properly.

I believe that our laws should be changed to those of Africa; you draw blood, you pay for the animal, or cancel your tag.

I like the system of minimum energy of 2000 ft-lbs of energy on elk, at the animal, 1500 for moose and 1000 for deer. Yes, less will kill; but is this responsible and giving the respect to the animal that time and older hunters have proven to be reliable?

We need to reinforce "hunting ethics" first!
 
Some great points guys, I think SJB makes a good point- cannons aren't required and good shooting is the crux of the problem to start with and better bullets make for more predictable performance.

I also think Blkram makes another excellent point- lots of folks are taking farther and farther shots on unwounded animals. Up here the rural community tends to shoot smaller cartridges like the 30-30 and the .223 for big game...they also shoot habitually from rock throwing distances.

Which spurs another question- is public land hunting getting so competitive that folks want to harvest any legal animal they can find- even across a large chasm or the next mountainside?
 
Agree with the others. The LR hunting bug is spreading.
The emphasis is on the higher BC and having less drop and drift.
The high BC bullets in the .308-.338 range recoil a lot more than
a 160 gr 7mm and even bigger difference with a 140 gr 6.5mm.
Put a brake on a 6.5mm and you just might even see your impact
at extended ranges.
Yes, the smaller calibers work but premium bullets are a must along with perfect
shot placement.

JD338
 
This is a discussion I get into often at my local gun range. Guys effortlessly nailing 6 inch plates or clay pigeons at 550 yards from a bench. Now go out into the field without your bench and things change. You also have to take into account the time it takes a bullet to reach the target. An average bullet to 500 yards is around 1/2 second. A persons reaction time to what their eyes see can be up to a second. Even if you cut that in half and say an animal started to move right as you pull the trigger but you have that 1/2 second delay and the bullet is on its way, then the 1/2 second of flight time added to it. That animal has now been moving for an entire second, that turns a killing shot into a horrible scenario for the animal and quite possibly a lost but severely crippled animal.

As far as lighter bullets in smaller calibers. I know the bullets are capable of doing the job when you put them where they need to be. I've always preferred to hunt with something that will get to the vitals no matter what the angle of the shot. As much as I've tried to use the force, I can't seem to get animals to always offer me a perfect broad side shot.
 
Excellent points guys, cannot agree more.

Blkram, you meant 2,000 for moose and 1,500 for elk? :wink:
 
Hodgeman, I think you raise a good point that can be contributing to the problem. Less habitat for the game, and less public land for hunters to pursue that game on. I am sure that there are other factors not yet identified here as well.

I didn't say it above, but I do not think that there is anything wrong with long range shooting, as it promotes good shooting form and practices. And that will make for better shooting in the field. I just don't believe that we should be hunting and shooting at animals at those same distances.

I practice from the bench regularly out to 400 yards, but rarely take shots at those distances in the field. I also use field rests and positions when shooting at game at 100 yards and beyond in the field.

I also practice out to 80 yards with my bows, and can shoot tight groups, but will never shoot at game that far. It sure does wonders for one's confidence. And that is a good thing.

And as always, shot placement is key!

Tackdriver, no, I said it right. Elk are more tenacious than moose. A moose is not overly tough to kill, whereas an elk is, even though they can weigh up to 1000 lbs less. Field experience has proven this many times.
 
Blkram":1ow6d505 said:
I believe the problem is that people want to be snipers and not hunters.

Bullets such as the Berger is designed for massive expansion and less penetration, so that smaller calibers deliver more hydrostatic shock and tissue damage to the animal and its nervous system for "DRT" performance. This leads to more meat damage. If the animal moves more than a few steps before expiring, many seem to believe that the bullet has failed.

The trend is also more about killing than hunting, and trophy size vs sustenance for the family. They want to brag about how far they shot an animal, and about how small a caliber they used to slay large, tenacious beasts.

I believe that this new "hunting" crowd, and those that are promoting their rifle/scope/bullet packages to increase sales are not promoting ethical hunting practices or mind sets.

Teaching new hunters that it is good to snipe at animals from 1000 yards is not a good practice. If they make a poor shot on an animal as tenacious as an elk across some canyon, open fields or mountain slopes, it could literally take then hours to get to where the elk was standing at the shot before they can start to follow up on that wounded animal. A poorly hit elk can now be 15 miles away. What if it is raining or snowing? Or starts to while getting to the spot? This will add to the difficulty of trying to track down the wounded animal! And I have seen way too many people give up trying to find their wounded animal without giving it "reasonable effort" as required by the law, or where they didn't even get to the right place where the animal was at the shot, and left a dead or dying animal in the field, but did continue to hunt for another animal. Not only are we finding these animals, but the game wardens are finding more animals dead in the field from rifle shots, and they cannot determine where the shot was taken from to perform their investigations properly.

I believe that our laws should be changed to those of Africa; you draw blood, you pay for the animal, or cancel your tag.

I like the system of minimum energy of 2000 ft-lbs of energy on elk, at the animal, 1500 for moose and 1000 for deer. Yes, less will kill; but is this responsible and giving the respect to the animal that time and older hunters have proven to be reliable?

We need to reinforce "hunting ethics" first!
Click to expand...

AMEN-AMEN -AMEN

IMHO Gil has nailed it! We were taught and I might say even forced to "hunt" by my parents and grandparents. It seemed when we were young we were never as close as we could get with a little more effort and patience.

Today, I witness both extremes in rifle calibers and distances. There are those who want to say they shot something at 500, 600, 700 yards. There are those who to be honest are just lazy and dont want to hunt they just want horns on their wall. They dont even care if the PH finishes off the animal. And now the other side of the coin. People show up with a brand new 460 Weatherby that they can not even begin to handle.

This is a great topic Hodgeman

Best Regards

Jamila
 
An old timer from where I live now once told me he didn't think anyone has any business taking a shot at a deer or elk beyond 250 yards. I'll go a bit farther than that but errors really start to magnify exponentially the farther out you get. I would rather hear the stories about the hunter who stalked his prey and closed the distance to something more reasonable. Besides, thats the really fun part of hunting!!
 
Blkram":16y8ruyc said:
no, I said it right. Elk are more tenacious than moose. A moose is not overly tough to kill, whereas an elk is, even though they can weigh up to 1000 lbs less. Field experience has proven this many times.
Click to expand...

I agree moose are pretty soft for their size, but they can still take a good deal of killing and frequently die in horrible locations.

Last year's moose was shot at 360yds. I missed my first shot broadside (likely because I'd just ran 1/2 mile through the alders and was puffing like a freight train) but the second hit it in ball socket quartering away...pretty happy I had a rifle with enough energy to penetrate the rear quarter and smash that femur bone. It wasn't ideal, but it was a clean kill when bone fragments destroyed the femoral artery. I'd have never fired that second shot if I didn't think the first had already connected. Between adrenaline and exertion I just flubbed it.

I only mention this because the whole event was nowhere near as tidy and planned as folks tend to portray hunting. I'm quite sure with a smaller bore carrying half the energy and equipped with a softer bullet and shot from another 200 yards away- I'd have blown a big chunk out of that ham and that moose would have ran for miles. Who knows if I could have recovered it, but it certainly would have been more problematic than it collapsing on the spot.

While I agree that these newer and popular smaller rifles are perfectly adequate for deer and antelope- moose and elk are enormous at their smallest sizes. A small rifle could certainly work, but at the ranges frequently spoken of- energy figures are very low. You can handily tip over a moose with a broadside shot at close range using about any centerfire cartridge- but moose are rarely that cooperative and elk are reportedly even less so.

I have to wonder if the set of requirements- adequate power, moderate recoil, light weight, and high accuracy just really exist in a single killing stick.
 
Hodgeman, you are not alone. I too wish that I could claim to having cleanly harvested every animal with one perfect shot.

I have had to track and finish animals as well. As mentioned by lefty above, animals rarely provide standing broadside shots. They move slightly, take a step or two or there is some obstacle between you and the animal, or there is a narrow shooting window. And then there is us...the human variable. Are we excited, unsteady, breathing hard, not using the best position or rest? All of these variables have an effect on our shot and its placement. This is where use enough gun truly comes into its own.

With the variety of cartridges available today, there are many that will provide the right combination of "adequate power, moderate recoil, lightweight and high accuracy" in a single "killing stick". It will depend on the animal hunted and the distance at which we should be reasonably hunting said animal at.

If we use the figures that I stated above, or where the law states otherwise (in BC for bison we can only use a minimum of a 175 gr bullet carrying a minimum of 2000 ft-lbs of energy at the animal), we can determine the appropriate cartridge at the expected or predetermined maximum distance to use said cartridge. And be prepared for a margin of error and less than perfect shot placement, should this occur.

Be prepared for an immediate follow up shot...do not get caught admiring your first shot! A spine shot animal where the bullet did not get the spinal cord can suddenly get up and be running and out of sight before you can reload and get back on target. Have had it happen to me, and seen it elsewhere in person and on tv. Lost a moose this way a few years ago. I was caught moving to another position to watch the downed animal before approaching. Totally my fault. A very sickening situation. It went into property where permission was not granted. I wish this on no hunter! Please learn from my mistake.
 
Blkram said: Be prepared for an immediate follow up shot...do not get caught admiring your first shot! A spine shot animal where the bullet did not get the spinal cord can suddenly get up and be running and out of sight before you can reload and get back on target.

I never try for a spinal shot but two years ago my shot hit high on a mule deer in Montana. Deer dropped like lightening. Every so often it would raise its head and after about 5 minutes it was trying to get to its feet. I closed some distance and got to within 150 yards about the time it stood up. Another shot fired and down it went, but still not dead!! Had to ultimately cut its throat after it took two 140 Accubonds from my .280 Rem. Second shot hit high, pretty much the same location as the first but that deer had a will to live like I've never seen.
 
I bought a .338Wm because I really didn't have faith in my 35/AI after I found a flaw in the barrel.
It wasn't that I was afraid it wouldn't make a clean kill but whether it would put the bullet where I wanted it at extended ranges.
I have a 257 Roberts that will place a bullet anyplace I want it and I have the confidence with it to take a head shot at 200yds or longer and have but would never consider using it on anything larger than White Tail deer.
 
What a great thread......................

I try not to pass too much judgment on others that hunt the extremes of both sides, those who kill at 1000 yards and those who condemn those who shoot past 200 yards. Those LR hunters put in an awful lot of time and practice and are often better at 1000 yards than some of the yahoos I see in the field shooting at 100 yards. And some of the old timers have probably witnessed too many idiots making horrible mistakes in the field so they have a reason for not liking longer shots.

The smaller and smaller cartridges do make me wonder though. There was a video of a person taking a bull elk with a .243 (gawkkk) at 600 yards. Sure, a proper bullet can kill at that range, even from such a cartridge. It's not my cup of tea though. I'd rather use a cartridge that has proven itself on elk over and over again allowing for less than perfect shots.

To me it comes down to personal responsibility. I worry more about what I can do or should be doing. The old saying that "even though a cartridge can kill, should it be used" comes to mind. For that reason I tend to like cartridges that are above minimum, even on the heavy side and pick ranges I know that I am comfortable with. I practice at 300-400 yards and at the bench pretty am decent at it. In the field when hunting I've passed every shot on a deer that was over 270 yards because there was always something going on that did not make me feel good about it. My first elk was over 400 yards though, he was standing broadside and motionless, no wind & no cover between us so that was all the stalking I was going to get that day. I felt good about it and when my breathing slowed enough to hold steady I let the bullet go.

I have a lot of respect for the hunter who will stay within his abilities and none for the guy who cares not about what happens.
 
It might not be a popular point of view here, but I feel as a hunter I have Enough people that do not like me , do not like what I represent, and do not believe in how I will raise my children. So that being said if a person is hunting under fair chase laws, with a legal caliber and fire arm , and following the regional game laws , who am I to judge. I won't be the one to call them out as we have enough antis with out feeding the fire by dividing hunters more. Ethics are subjective , and a wise man once said . Ethics are not what what you do when everyone is watching it is conducting your self with the same scrutiny when there is no one around..
I hunt with the 243 and 6mm a fair bit, and I have helped many first time hunters start out with the smaller firearms with a very good sucsess rate. . Many as they grow move on to other cartridges and develop their own sense of what they are looking for in a sporting arm. , that is the growth of a hunter .
I enjoy bow hunting just as much as I do rifle hunting , maybe more so, that does not mean during rifle season if I deem a shot on a legal deer to be 400 yrds I feel quite capable of that with most of my fire arms.
If I didn't I wouldn't take the shot. No difference then a 50 yrds bow shot to me. That is my max range and things need a lot of consideration before coming to full draw in those situations.
If the people are breaking laws that to me is where we want to differentiate between hunter and poacher. That for me is much more relevant if a discussion then the caliber one chooses to hunt with.

Likley not a popular opinion but I stand by it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Anyone who has shot or has seen shot a lot of elk knows that a marginal hit from a 338 will slow an elk down way more than one hit badly with a 243. The large frontal area does a lot more damage.
 
I am in fact a believer in live and let live and if someone is hunting within the laws of the land they are hunting in, then they have a right to hunt in whatever manner is best for them.

However I believe hodgeman make's a great point in his opening post and agree with EVERYTHING Gil said in his post. Maybe the laws need to be changed.

Charles;s comment about it coming down to personal responsibility is my sentiments exactly.

I have passed on many of shots, that I could have taken legally.

Hodgeman, I dont frequent many forums and thought it might be interesting for you to look at the posters who supposedly use smaller calibers and shoot a mile when they hunt. My guess is none of them live and hunt in Alaska.
 
While half the shooting world is extolling the virtues of the "Creed" for virtually everything it WASN'T designed for, I'll just stick with the cartridges that offer more horsepower and get the job done with a margin of error built in.

Yes - if you put any decent bullet into the vitals of a game animal a kill is going to follow. But how often do all the elements of a perfect shot present themselves under real life hunting conditions?

I prefer my game to drop quickly to ensure recovery. Marginal cartridges rarely provide the DRT results that many hunters prefer.
 
Charlie-NY":1145yap8 said:
While half the shooting world is extolling the virtues of the "Creed" for virtually everything it WASN'T designed for, I'll just stick with the cartridges that offer more horsepower and get the job done with a margin of error built in
Click to expand...

That's kind of the root of my discussion... there seems to be a lot of interest in taking a target round, stuffing it into a 5 pound rifle and then thinking it's a long range death ray..I just don't see it as such. I've had a long association with the .243 and no one until just recently talked about potting moose or elk with them. I think the .243 is a fine deer cartridge and it makes a good "dual purpose" deer and varmint machine down in the South where deer are small and groundhogs are big. I had one in the 90s and did just that with it.

I thought the whole idea behind the Creed (as well as the 6.5-284) was long ranging capability without the punishing recoil of a hunting rifle...no need to deal with it for a paper puncher and compounded recoil is a bad deal for the F-Class and Benchrest shoots.

I guess the thing that surprises me the most is how quickly the conventional wisdom of just a few years ago got tossed aside- guys like Craig Boddington putting in print that the .270 was marginal for elk (right side of the margin, but near it) and that the fast .33s were where moose guns started. That was just 20 years ago and he was far from controversial in his view. In fact, he pretty much represented the conventional wisdom that I grew up with.

Maybe I'm becoming curmudgeonly, but there's a whole bunch of folks with way more experience putting animals on the ground being routinely ignored on the topic. I realize that technology has advanced since then, but I really question how much. I don't think laws or legal action is required, but so far I'm not hearing anyone (at least on a couple of venues I visit) say "Whoa...that's a long way to tackle an elk with such a light cartridge!"

I really thank everyone for their contribution to the thread so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

6
Ovis Outfitters - grizzly bear hunt - evaluation
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
6mm Remington
6
DrMike
Jeremiah's First Big Game Animal
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
sask boy
S
Guy Miner
Bullet Performance - some recent words from John Barsness
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Wincheringen
W
DrMike
Elk with 150 grain ABLR (280 Rem)
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
12K
DrMike
DrMike
3
New IN Reg Proposal, New Hunting Options, New .257 Bee???
Replies
13
Views
2K
Vince
V
AMMUNITIONAmmunition BULLETSBullets BRASSBrass FirearmsFirearms GearGear
Back
Top